PETITION TO BAN IMPORTS OF FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS … · vaquita, it is irrefutable that many of Mexico’s commercial fisheries exporting to the United States engage in activities

May 18, 2017

PETITION TO BAN IMPORTS OF FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS FROM

MEXICO THAT RESULT IN THE INCIDENTAL KILL OR SERIOUS

INJURY OF VAQUITA IN EXCESS OF UNITED STATES STANDARDS

PURSUANT TO MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT SECTION 101

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE

TREASURY, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Natural Resources Defense Council

Center for Biological Diversity

Animal Welfare Institute

NOTICE OF PETITION

John Kelly, Secretary

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

Steven Mnuchin, Secretary

Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW


Wilbur Ross, Secretary

Department of Commerce

1401 Constitution Ave., NW


Kevin McAleenan, Acting Commissioner

Customs and Border Protection

Department of Homeland Security

1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW


Sam Rauch

Acting Assistant Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Petitioners


1314 2nd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Tel: (310) 434-2300

Center for Biological Diversity

2400 NW 80th St., #146

Seattle, WA 98117

Tel: (206) 327-2344

Animal Welfare Institute

900 Pennsylvania Ave., SE


Tel: (202) 337-2332

The Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) is an international nonprofit environmental

organization with more than 2 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers,

scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural

resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City,

Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, and Beijing. NRDC and its

members are concerned with the conservation of marine mammals and the effective

implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. www.nrdc.org

The Center for Biological Diversity (“the Center”) is a nonprofit conservation organization

dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and

environmental law. The Center has more than 1.3 million members and online activists dedicated

to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Center and its members are

concerned with the conservation of marine mammals and the effective implementation of the

Marine Mammal Protection Act. www.biologicaldiversity.org

The Animal Welfare Institute (“AWI”) is a non-profit charitable organization founded in 1951

and dedicated to reducing animal suffering caused by people. AWI engages policymakers,

scientists, industry, and the public to achieve better treatment of animals everywhere — in the

laboratory, on the farm, in commerce, at home, and in the wild. www.awionline.org

Action Requested

NRDC, the Center, and AWI request the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Treasury, and

Commerce to carry out the non-discretionary duties imposed by section 101(a)(2) of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(2), to “ban the importation of

commercial fish or products from fish” sourced using fishing activities that “result[ ] in the

incidental kill or incidental serious injury” of vaquita “in excess of United States standards.”

Contrary to the MMPA, the United States, through the actions and inactions of your agencies,

allows the importation of fish and fish products from Mexico that kill and injure critically

endangered vaquita in excess of United States standards. In addition, to the extent that Mexico

has provided reasonable proof regarding the effects of its commercial fishing activities on

vaquita, it is irrefutable that many of Mexico’s commercial fisheries exporting to the United

States engage in activities that incidentally kill or seriously injury vaquita in excess of United

States standards.

Therefore, petitioners request that the Secretaries immediately ban imports of all fish and fish

products from Mexico that do not satisfy the MMPA section 102(a)(2) requirements as applied to

the incidental killing or serious injury of vaquita. Further, emergency rulemaking banning such

imports is necessary to avoid immediate, ongoing, and “unacceptable risks” to vaquita. Please

consider this letter a formal petition for such action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) and,

http://www.nrdc.org/

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/

http://www.awionline.org/

given the imminent extinction of the vaquita and emergency nature of this situation, we

request that you provide a substantive response within 60 days.

Dated: May 18, 2017

________________________

Zak Smith

Senior Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection

Director, Wildlife Trade Initiative


1314 2nd Street

Santa Monica, CA 90401

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

INTRODUCTION

The Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and Animal Welfare

Institute (“Petitioners”) request that the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of

the Treasury, and the Department of Commerce carry out their non-discretionary duties under

Section 101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(2), to

“ban the importation of commercial fish or products from fish” sourced in a manner that “results

in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury” of vaquita “in excess of United States

standards.” Specifically, we request that the relevant Secretary ban all fish and fish products

originating from the vaquita’s range in the northern Gulf of California that were obtained using

any kind of gillnet—the fishing gear solely responsible for the near extinction of the vaquita.

Bycatch poses the most significant threat to marine mammal species around the globe. Hundreds

of thousands of dolphins, whales, sea lions, and other marine mammals are injured and killed

each year in gillnets, longlines, and other fishing gear. For the vaquita, gillnet bycatch has driven

the species from a population of more than 700 in 1990 to fewer than 30 vaquita remaining

today, a decline of more than 95 percent in about 25 years. If current decline rates continue, the

vaquita will be extinct in two years. In response, the Comité Internacional para la Recuperación

de la Vaquita (CIRVA)—the preeminent body of vaquita experts—has repeatedly recommended

“that the sale or possession of gillnets on land and at sea should be illegal” within the vaquita’s

range and on adjacent lands.

Congress recognized the threat commercial-fisheries bycatch presents to marine mammal species

like the vaquita when it passed the MMPA in 1972. The law tightly regulates and restricts

fisheries-related mortalities of marine mammals and has led to the establishment of significant

protective measures limiting harmful fishing practices and protecting marine mammal

populations from fisheries bycatch in U.S. waters. Congress also recognized that, if the United

States’ efforts to protect marine mammals from fisheries bycatch were to be successful, it would

have to exert pressure on fisheries of other nations to adopt similarly protective measures.

Section 101 of the MMPA provides the vital international component of ensuring the safety and

conservation of marine mammals outside U.S. waters. By requiring foreign nations to prove that

their fishing does not kill or injure marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards before allowing

those nations to export fish and fish products to the U.S., Section 101 of the MMPA ensures that

the United States’ considerable economic power provides an incentive to conserve, rather than

obliterate, marine mammal populations. It also serves to protect U.S. fishers from unfair

competition by foreign fishers operating without appropriate restraints on fishing practices.

After considerable delay and following litigation, the Department of Commerce issued rules

implementing MMPA Section 101’s import provisions in August 2016. While the regulations

adopt a legally-dubiously five-year exemption period during which commercial fish and fish

product imports generally will not be subject to the law’s clear dictate, the rule nonetheless

contemplates “emergency rulemaking to ban imports of fish and fish products from an export or

exempt fishery having or likely to have an immediate and significant adverse impact on a marine

mammal stock.” The status of the vaquita clearly constitutes such an emergency and the U.S.

government must take immediate action to implement the MMPA’s import provisions and ban

all fish and fish product imports from Mexico sourced using fishing activities that kill or injure

the vaquita in excess of U.S. standards.

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. The MMPA’s Restriction on the Import of Commercial Fish or Fish

Products

Section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA reads as follows:

The Secretary of the Treasury1 shall ban the importation of commercial fish or

products from fish which have been caught with commercial fishing technology

which results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals

in excess of United States standards. For purposes of applying the preceding

sentence, the Secretary—

(A) shall insist on reasonable proof from the government of any nation from

which fish or fish products will be exported to the United States of the effects on

ocean mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use for such fish or fish

products exported from such nation to the United States…2

Thus, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Homeland Security, and Commerce have a duty to

ban imports of fish and fish products absent information demonstrating that the fish was

caught in accordance with U.S. standards. Further, the MMPA places the burden on

exporting countries to provide reasonable proof of compliance with U.S. standards. In

short, the United States, through the relevant agencies, must demand, obtain, and deem

adequate a country’s demonstration that the effects of its fishing practices on marine

1 While the MMPA assigns the duty to ban imports to “the Secretary of Treasury,” in 2002, Congress transferred

some of Treasury’s authority to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and thus DHS’s sub-agency,

Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”). See 6 U.S.C. §§ 203; 212(a)(1), (2); see also 19 C.F.R. § 0.1, Appx. 1; 68 Fed.

Reg. 28,322 (May 23, 2003) (Treasury Order 100-16, delegating all “Customs revenue functions” to the DHS,

except retaining Treasury’s “authority to approve any regulations concerning import quotas or trade bans,”

“marking,” “record-keeping,” and other “entry” requirements). Additionally, NMFS has clarified that duty to “insist

on reasonable proof” is assigned to the Secretary of Commerce. 75 Fed. Reg. 22,731 (Apr. 30, 2010). 2 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(2).

mammals meet U.S. standards before allowing that country’s fish products to enter the

United States.3

For the vaquita, the situation that Congress sought to avoid—a situation in which U.S.

consumer dollars have supported the decimation of the species by poorly regulated,

destructive fisheries—has unfolded and must be stopped.

B. Implementing the Import Provisions of the MMPA

In August 2016, the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) finalized a rule implementing

MMPA Section 101(a)(2)’s import provisions.4 The rule establishes a process for determining

whether a fish or fish product entering the U.S. must be banned for failing to meet U.S. standards

for marine mammal protection.5

Specifically, the rule sets forth a process for evaluating countries’ regulatory programs for

addressing incidental and intentional mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in fisheries

that export fish and fish products to the United States. Fish and fish products from such fisheries

may only be imported into the U.S. if a country has applied for and received a “comparability

finding” for the fisheries from NMFS. To receive a comparability finding, a country must meet

two conditions. First, it must prohibit the intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals

in the course of commercial fishing operations and show that it has procedures to reliably certify

that its fisheries comply with the prohibition.6 Second, the country must maintain a regulatory

program that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S.’s regulatory program for reducing

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing

operations.7

For Mexican fisheries operating in the northern Gulf of California that export products to the

United States, NMFS will make a comparability finding by determining whether Mexico

“maintains a regulatory program that provides for, or effectively achieves comparable results as,

the following” elements corresponding to the U.S.’s regulatory program: (1) marine mammal

stock assessments for those stocks interacting with the export fishery; (2) maintenance of a

fishing registry that tracks number of vessels, effort areas and dates, gear type, and target

3 Underscoring the seriousness of the ban, the MMPA makes the import of such products a criminal violation: “It is

unlawful to import into the United States . . . any fish, whether fresh, frozen, or otherwise prepared, if such fish was

caught in a manner which the Secretary has proscribed for persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,

whether or not any marine mammals were in fact taken incident to the catching of the fish.” 16 U.S.C. § 1372(c)(3). 4 See 81 Fed. Reg. 54390 (Aug. 15, 2016). 5 While petitioners do not believe that NMFS’s conception of “U.S. standards” adequately captures the full level of

protections afforded marine mammals under U.S. law, any disagreement is irrelevant in the case of vaquita given the

species’ status. 6 See 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(h)(6)(iii)(A). 7 See 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(h)(6)(iii)(B).

species; (3) regulatory requirements on reporting marine mammal take and reducing the total

incidental mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock below the U.S. bycatch limit;

(4) implementation of a monitoring program to estimate incidental mortality and serious injury

of marine mammals resulting from export fisheries; (5) the setting of bycatch limits for marine

mammal populations harmed by export fisheries; and (6) an analysis of the harm from each

export fishery in relation to the bycatch limit and other export fisheries.8

As noted above, the rule also establishes a five-year phase-in period—NMFS’s “one-time

exemption period”—to allow countries to develop and refine the necessary regulatory programs

for obtaining a comparability finding.9 However, acknowledging that some marine mammal

populations may need immediate relief from exporters’ non-compliance with the MMPA’s

import provisions, the final rule recognizes that NMFS may conduct “emergency rulemaking.”10

According to NMFS, such action allows “for timely treatment of cases where the usual process

and timeframe could result in unacceptable risks to the affected marine mammal stock or

species.”11 NMFS identifies one category of “unacceptable ecological risk” as a “very small

population[] where any incidental mortality could result in increased risk of extinction.”12

II. VAQUITA

A. Vaquita Status

NMFS’s description of unacceptable ecological risk is tailor-made for the vaquita, a porpoise

species with fewer than 30 individuals remaining that suffers an ever-higher risk of extinction

with each mortality.

The status of the vaquita is well known to NMFS, as its officials have been members of CIRVA

since its inception in 1997. CIRVA met in 1997, 1999, 2004, 2012, 2014, 2015, twice in 2016,

and once to date in 2017.13 Reports from CIRVA document a dramatic vaquita decline of more

than 95 percent over the last two decades. The following figure (Figure 1), from the report of the

fifth meeting of CIRVA in 2014, shows a decline rate that reached 18.5 percent per year in 2014.

8 See 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(h)(6)(iii)(C). 9 See 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(h)(2)(ii). While Petitioners believe that NMFS lacks the authority to exempt nations from

the MMPA’s clear statutory directive because Section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA includes no exceptions and provides

for no delay, Petitioners believe that any disagreement is irrelevant given the status of vaquita, which compels

immediate action. 10 See 81 Fed. Reg. 54390, 54395 (Aug. 15, 2016). 11 81 Fed. Reg. at 54395. 12 Id. 13 CIRVA reports can be found at www.BoycottMexicanShrimp.com.

http://www.boycottmexicanshrimp.com/

Figure 1. Vaquita Population Trajectory from CIRVA-5, July 2014.

In the report from its eighth meeting, CIRVA estimated an “average annual rate of decline

between 2011 and 2016” of “39%, corresponding to a population decline of 90% over this five-

year period.”14 As of 2015, the annual decline rate had reached approximately 50 percent.15 At

this rate, the vaquita will be functionally extinct by 2019, just two years from now.

Vaquita decline is attributable to one factor: bycatch in gillnets. Over time, numerous Mexican

fisheries have played a role in vaquita bycatch (e.g., totoaba, shrimp, sharks, rays, sierra, and

chano)16 but they all have one thing in common, the use of gillnets.17 In response, CIRVA has

noted on numerous occasions that the use of gillnets by any fishery in the vaquita’s range is

incompatible with the survival of the species.18

14 Report of the Eighth Meeting of CIRVA, November 2016, p. 3. 15 Id. 16 See Report of the First Meeting of CIRVA, January 1997, p. 1-12, 1-13; Vidal, O. 1995. Population biology and

incidental mortality of the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue

16):247-272. 17 See Report of the Fifth Meeting of CIRVA, July 2014; Barlow, J., Rojas-Bracho, L., Munoz-Pina, C., and S.

Mesnick. 2010. Conservation of the vaquita (Phocoena sinus) in the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico. Handbook

of marine fisheries conservation and management, 205-214; Vidal, O. 1995. Population biology and incidental

mortality of the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 16):247-

272. 18 Report of the Eighth Meeting of CIRVA, November 2016, p. 4 (“CIRVA repeats its previous recommendation

that the Government of Mexico implement a permanent ban on all gillnets throughout the entire range of the

vaquita.”) (emphasis added).

B. Gillnet-Using Fisheries in the Upper Gulf Do Not Meet U.S. Standards

and Emergency Rulemaking Is Necessary to Immediately Ban Imports

Any fishery using gillnets in or adjacent to the vaquita’s range operates in a manner that is

incompatible with U.S. standards for marine mammal protection. As discussed in NMFS’s

rulemaking for the MMPA’s import provisions, U.S. standards include a bycatch limit. In the

United States, NMFS determines a fisheries bycatch limit by calculating the “potential biological

removal” (“PBR”), which is the “maximum number of animals…that may be removed…while

allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population.”19 If NMFS

calculated a PBR for vaquita, it would be essentially zero.20 In comparison, the vaquita

experienced a population decline of nearly 50 percent between 2015 and 2016, with only

approximately 30 vaquita remaining as of November 2016.21 With gillnet bycatch the sole driver

of vaquita decline, gillnet fisheries in and adjacent to their range are producing a mortality rate

well in excess of PBR.22

In the United States, a similarly situated stock would be designated a “strategic stock” and a take

reduction team would be formed to develop a take reduction plan to ensure that vaquita serious

injury/mortality does not exceed PBR (i.e., zero).23 While not a U.S. stock, the vaquita has the

functional equivalent of such a team (CIRVA) and such a plan (CIRVA recommendations).

While there are several elements of CIRVA’s recovery plan, relevant here is the fact that CIRVA

has continually identified gillnet-free habitat as a necessary precondition to vaquita survival and

recovery, calling for the complete and total elimination of all gillnets in and adjacent to the

vaquita’s range and the ban of gillnets in every fishery operating in and adjacent to the vaquita’s

range.

19 16 U.S.C. § 1362(20). 20 More specifically, assuming a current, minimum vaquita population of 30 animals (likely an overestimate), a

productivity rate of 0.04 (the growth rate commonly assigned to porpoises, although the productivity rate for vaquita

is expected to lower than 0.04, see Rojas-Bracho et al. (2006)), and a recovery factor of 0.1 (the default value for

endangered stocks), the maximum possible PBR would be 0.06 animals per year.

Min pop of vaquita [30] x Half max productivity rate [0.5 x 0.04] x Recovery factor [0.1] = 0.06.

At this rate, only one vaquita could be killed roughly every 17 years. See Rojas-Bracho, L., Reeves, R.R., &

Jaramillo-Legorreta, A. 2006. Conservation of the vaquita Phocoena sinus. Mammal Rev. 36:179-216. Note that the

minimum population estimate (30) is conservative as it technically should be the 20th percentile of a log-normal

distribution of the population abundance estimate, which would result in a lower minimum population estimate and,

consequently, a lower PBR. 21 Report of the Eighth Meeting of CIRVA, November 2016, p. 3. 22 Note that eight vaquita have been found dead since the beginning of 2016.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/world/americas/only-captivity-will-save-the-vaquita-experts-say.html?_r=0. 23 16 U.S.C. § 1387(f); the vaquitas status under the Endangered Species Act (i.e., Endangered) would also trigger

the creation of a take reduction team and a take reduction plan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/world/americas/only-captivity-will-save-the-vaquita-experts-say.html?_r=0

In addition to triggering the MMPA’s more general ban on the import of fish products from

fisheries violating U.S. marine mammal protection standards, gillnet fisheries in the vaquita’s

range also trigger NMFS’s and the MMPA’s emergency rulemaking standards. As noted above,

NMFS has authority to issue emergency rulemaking for any export fishery “having or likely to

have an immediate and significant adverse impact on a marine mammal stock.”24 Upper Gulf of

California (“UGC”) gillnet fisheries are no doubt having an immediate and significant adverse

impact on vaquita, as the fisheries present an “unacceptable ecological risk” to a “very small

population[] where any incidental mortality could result in increased risk of extinction.”25

Further, in a letter submitted to NMFS’s Office of International Affairs on 1 March 2017, the

United States Marine Mammal Commission (“MMC”) specifically recommended “that NMFS

consider emergency rulemaking to make a finding that” UGC gillnet fisheries “do not meet the

standards applicable under section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA.” MMC explained that, “[t]he gillnet

fisheries of the [UGC] continue to cause high levels of bycatch mortality for the vaquita” and

that there is “sufficient information to indicate that all gillnet fisheries that incidentally catch

vaquitas are employing a fishing technology that kills or seriously injures marine mammals in

excess of U.S. standards.”26

The MMPA specifically requires that NMFS “shall . . . respond[ ] to” “[a]ny recommendations

made by the Commission” within 120 days of receiving such a recommendation. If MMC’s

recommendation is not adopted, NMFS must provide a “detailed explanation” why not.27

In light of the above, any fishery using gillnets in the UGC does not meet U.S. standards under

the MMPA. On information and belief, the following fisheries operating in the UGC utilize

gillnets and, thus, violate U.S. standards:

Bat Ray (Myliobatis californicus)

Bigeye croaker (Micropogonias megalops)

Blue Shrimp (Litopenaeus stylirostris)

Brown Smoothhound (Mustelus henlei)

California Butterfly Ray (Gymnura marmorata)

California flounder (Paralichthys californicus)

Cortez Halibut (Paralichthys aestuarius)

Corvinas (Cynoscion parvipinnis, C. xanthulus, C. reticulatus)

Diamond Stingray/Manta Raya (Hypanus dipterurus)

Finescale Triggerfish (Balistes polylepis)

Flathead Mullet (Mugil cephalus)

24 See 81 Fed. Reg. 54390, 54395 (Aug. 15, 2016). 25 Id. 26 https://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/17-03-01-Young-Fisheries-Bycatch.pdf 27 16 U.S.C. 1402(d).

https://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/17-03-01-Young-Fisheries-Bycatch.pdf

Goldspotted sand bass (Paralabrax auroguttatus)

Gray Smooth-hound (Mustelus californicus)

Guitarfish (Pseudobatos productus)

Gulf Coney (Hyporthodus acanthistius)

Gulf corvina (Cynoscion othonopterus)

Gulf Grouper (Mycteroperca jordani)

Jack

King croaker (Genyonemus lineatus)

Longnose Eagle Ray (Myliobatis longirostris)

Mexican barred snapper (Hoplopagrus guentherii)

Monterey Spanish mackerel/Gulf Sierra (Scomberomorus concolor)

Northern Red Snapper/huachinango del Golfo (Lutjanus campechanus)

Octopus

Pacific Angel Shark (Squatina californica)

Pacific Butterfish/Pacific Pompano (Peprilus simillimus)

Pacific Sharpnose Shark (Rhizoprionodon longurio)

Pacific Sierra (Scomberomorus sierra)

Sicklefin Smoothhound (Mustelus lunulatus)

White Mullet (Mugil curema)

White weakfish/White seabass (Atractoscion nobilis)

other shrimp, other sharks, other corvina28

The above list is not complete. There are additional fisheries operating in the UGC and if any of

them utilize gillnets, they are not meeting U.S. standards.

C. Imports of Vaquita-Harmful Fish and Fish Products from Mexico

Any fish or fish product from the fisheries identified above, or any fish or fish product from any

other gillnet-using fishery operating in the UGC, does not meet U.S. standards. Over the last five

years, the United States has imported the type of fish and fish products produced by these

fisheries. 29 Pursuant to the MMPA, imports of fish and fish products from these fisheries must

be banned.

28 See, e.g., Erisman, B. et al. 2015. A comparison of fishing activities between two coastal communities within a

biosphere reserve in the Upper Gulf of California. Fisheries Research 164:254-265. 29 See Appendix I.

III. THE UNITED STATES MUST IMMEDIATELY BAN THE IMPORT

OF ALL FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS CAUGHT USING GILNET GEAR

WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE VAQUITA’S RANGE.

When Congress passed the MMPA, it realized that marine mammal conservation could not be

accomplished through regulation of U.S. fisheries alone. MMPA section 101(a)(2) therefore

mandates the use of the United States’ considerable trade power to achieve conservation of

marine mammals outside U.S. waters. This provision is meant to provide a strong incentive for

foreign fisheries to protect marine mammals from dangerous fishing activities. Unfortunately,

over the past decades the U.S. government has been promoting the exact opposite result for

vaquita by allowing imports of shrimp, corvina, and other fish and fish products from fisheries

engaging in activities that have driven the vaquita to near-extinction.

The Secretaries’ failure to enforce MMPA section 101(a)(2) as it applies to vaquita harms U.S.

interests in trade and conservation. Petitioners therefore urge the Secretary of Homeland

Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce to immediately ban the

import of all fish and fish products from Mexico that contribute to the killing or serious injury of

vaquita in violation of U.S. standards.

We look forward to receiving your responses within 60 days of receiving this petition.

National Marine Fisheries ServiceFisheries Statistics and Economics Division

You asked for the following

Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: FISH NSPF

Countries: MEXICO

Note: If a month is not listed, then we do not have data for that month. Current data through March, 2017.

Country Product Name Kilos Dollars

2012

MEXICO FISH NSPF DRIED 1,245 41,640

MEXICO FISH NSPF FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN > 4.5KG 142,968 1,392,355

MEXICO FISH NSPF FRESH SCALED NOT >6.8KG 1,406 6,216

MEXICO FISH NSPF HEADS,TAILS,MAWS DRIED/SALTED/BRINE/SMOKED 53,351 78,849

MEXICO FISH NSPF LIVER OIL/FRACTIONS 986 8,604

MEXICO FISH NSPF OIL/FRACTIONS 3,219,132 4,423,280

MEXICO FISH NSPF SMOKED 48,963 725,067

Grand Total: 2012 3,468,051 6,676,011

2013


MEXICO FISH NSPF FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN > 4.5KG 88,154 866,702


MEXICO FISH NSPF LIVER,ROE FROZEN 3,570 4,463

MEXICO FISH NSPF LIVER,ROE, MILT CURED 748 4,125


MEXICO FISH NSPF OTHER EDIBLE OFFAL 17,791 13,700


Grand Total: 2013 3,352,873 5,953,148

2014





MEXICO FISH NSPF OTHER EDIBLE OFFAL 17,550 21,236


NMFS Trade Query - Single Product By Country https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/trade_prdct_cntry_ind.results?...

1 of 2 5/16/17, 12:52 PM

zsmith

Typewritten Text

Appendix I of Petition to Ban Imports of Fish and Fish Products from Mexico

zsmith

Typewritten Text

Grand Total: 2014 1,155,113 2,336,452

2015

MEXICO FISH NSPF DRIED 450 7,276

MEXICO FISH NSPF FERTILIZED EGGS 3,492 12,981


MEXICO FISH NSPF FILLET DRIED/SALTED/BRINE 272 2,352



MEXICO FISH NSPF LIVER,ROE, MILT CURED 492 3,936

MEXICO FISH NSPF OIL/FRACTIONS 709,787 1,147,516


Grand Total: 2015 818,149 1,907,766

2016




MEXICO FISH NSPF FRESH SCALED NOT >6.8KG 636 2,146


MEXICO FISH NSPF OIL/FRACTIONS 574,462 937,049

Grand Total: 2016 688,904 1,826,314

2017



MEXICO FISH NSPF HEADS,TAILS,MAWS DRIED/SALTED/BRINE/SMOKED 586 4,515

MEXICO FISH NSPF LIVER,ROE, MILT FROZEN 2,913 20,391

MEXICO FISH NSPF OIL/FRACTIONS 72,414 123,725

Grand Total: 2017 141,081 549,723


2 of 2 5/16/17, 12:52 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: MARINE FISH NSPF

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF FILLET FRESH 1,142,541 16,738,891

MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF FILLET FROZEN 1,199,992 14,858,291

MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF FRESH 2,732,393 9,797,864

MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF FROZEN 2,456,613 4,976,764

MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF MEAT FRESH 350,341 4,782,742

MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF MEAT FROZEN > 6.8KG 36,073 249,659

MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF MEAT FROZEN NOT > 6.8 KG 50,126 214,111

Grand Total: 2012 7,968,079 51,618,322

2013


MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF FILLET FROZEN 945,812 10,508,789






Grand Total: 2013 9,208,580 52,794,358

2014









1 of 2 5/16/17, 12:51 PM

Grand Total: 2014 9,813,767 55,083,881

2015








Grand Total: 2015 9,854,044 70,557,335

2016





MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF MEAT FRESH 49,489 768,002



Grand Total: 2016 11,697,221 70,115,042

2017

MEXICO MARINE FISH NSPF FILLET FRESH 126,674 1,763,767






Grand Total: 2017 3,454,124 18,688,228


2 of 2 5/16/17, 12:51 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: BASS

Countries: MEXICO



No Data For 2012

No Data For 2013

No Data For 2014

No Data For 2015

No Data For 2016

2017

MEXICO BASS FRESH 16,122 116,463

Grand Total: 2017 16,122 116,463


1 of 1 5/16/17, 12:59 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: FLATFISH FLOUNDER

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN > 4.5KG 690 5,122

MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FILLET FRESH 4,383 44,943

MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FILLET FROZEN 16,661 113,888

MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FRESH 61,142 166,491

MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FROZEN 4,298 31,540

Grand Total: 2012 87,174 361,984

2013

MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN > 4.5KG 10,215 91,871



MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FROZEN 909 2,482

Grand Total: 2013 177,367 855,149

2014


MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FRESH 291,881 1,950,475

Grand Total: 2014 337,288 2,342,041

2015



Grand Total: 2015 269,646 1,720,107

2016

MEXICO FLATFISH FLOUNDER FILLET FRESH 934 4,570



Grand Total: 2016 209,169 1,063,932


1 of 2 5/16/17, 12:55 PM

2017


Grand Total: 2017 113,046 504,116


2 of 2 5/16/17, 12:55 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: GROUPER

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO GROUPER FRESH 3,414,706 25,310,501

MEXICO GROUPER FROZEN 311,093 1,092,860

Grand Total: 2012 3,725,799 26,403,361

2013



Grand Total: 2013 4,366,552 33,938,248

2014



Grand Total: 2014 3,294,707 28,978,192

2015



Grand Total: 2015 3,421,471 31,445,628

2016


MEXICO GROUPER FROZEN 90,915 420,056

Grand Total: 2016 3,517,828 31,865,799

2017

MEXICO GROUPER FRESH 638,619 5,540,689

MEXICO GROUPER FROZEN 152,087 290,749

Grand Total: 2017 790,706 5,831,438


1 of 1 5/16/17, 1:32 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: FLATFISH HALIBUT

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO FLATFISH HALIBUT ATLANTIC FRESH 920 2,042

MEXICO FLATFISH HALIBUT NSPF FILLET FROZEN 155,654 1,198,621

MEXICO FLATFISH HALIBUT PACIFIC FRESH 569,200 1,968,286

MEXICO FLATFISH HALIBUT PACIFIC FROZEN 2,571 28,685

Grand Total: 2012 728,345 3,197,634

2013

MEXICO FLATFISH HALIBUT NSPF FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN > 4.5KG 2,641 19,021

MEXICO FLATFISH HALIBUT NSPF FILLET FROZEN 107,577 798,683


Grand Total: 2013 563,207 2,912,308

2014

MEXICO FLATFISH HALIBUT ATLANTIC FRESH 510 3,747




Grand Total: 2014 405,730 2,281,745

2015




Grand Total: 2015 463,508 2,615,865

2016





1 of 2 5/16/17, 12:55 PM

Grand Total: 2016 484,355 2,730,224

2017


MEXICO FLATFISH HALIBUT PACIFIC FRESH 62,824 458,512

Grand Total: 2017 64,315 479,236


2 of 2 5/16/17, 12:55 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: JACK,HORSE MACKEREL

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO JACK,HORSE MACKEREL FRESH 26,965 105,508

MEXICO JACK,HORSE MACKEREL FROZEN 9,037 21,994

Grand Total: 2012 36,002 127,502

2013



Grand Total: 2013 69,783 163,430

2014


MEXICO JACK,HORSE MACKEREL FRESH NOT > 6.8KG 13,614 53,798


Grand Total: 2014 33,610 138,717

2015



Grand Total: 2015 62,746 142,997

2016


MEXICO JACK,HORSE MACKEREL FRESH NOT > 6.8KG 19,068 36,616


Grand Total: 2016 75,626 172,919

2017



Grand Total: 2017 4,658 31,705


1 of 1 5/16/17, 1:33 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: MULLET

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO MULLET FROZEN 8,925 24,402

Grand Total: 2012 8,925 24,402

No Data For 2013

2014

MEXICO MULLET ROE FROZEN 18,641 74,944

Grand Total: 2014 18,641 74,944

No Data For 2015

No Data For 2016

No Data For 2017


1 of 1 5/16/17, 12:57 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: OCTOPUS

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO OCTOPUS FROZEN/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE 618,463 4,119,733

MEXICO OCTOPUS LIVE/FRESH 57,744 274,482

MEXICO OCTOPUS NSPF PREPARED/PRESERVED 13,120 42,092

Grand Total: 2012 689,327 4,436,307

2013


MEXICO OCTOPUS LIVE/FRESH 860 15,304

MEXICO OCTOPUS NSPF PREPARED/PRESERVED 659 7,231

Grand Total: 2013 669,243 3,317,501

2014



Grand Total: 2014 687,950 4,283,337

2015

MEXICO OCTOPUS FROZEN/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE 1,244,536 6,484,655


Grand Total: 2015 1,274,131 6,671,609

2016

MEXICO OCTOPUS FROZEN/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE 1,101,931 6,230,584


Grand Total: 2016 1,120,674 6,356,098

2017

MEXICO OCTOPUS FROZEN 259,822 1,928,831

Grand Total: 2017 259,822 1,928,831


1 of 1 5/16/17, 1:35 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: RAYS, SKATES

Countries: MEXICO



No Data For 2012

2013

MEXICO RAYS, SKATES FRESH 11,115 33,116

Grand Total: 2013 11,115 33,116

2014

MEXICO RAYS, SKATES FRESH 4,585 11,464

Grand Total: 2014 4,585 11,464

No Data For 2015

2016

MEXICO RAYS, SKATES FROZEN 7,000 26,374

Grand Total: 2016 7,000 26,374

No Data For 2017


1 of 1 5/16/17, 12:48 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: SEA BASS

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO SEA BASS (DICENTRARCHUS SPP.) FRESH 1,388 10,605

MEXICO SEA BASS (DICENTRARCHUS SPP.) FROZEN 3,520 9,846

Grand Total: 2012 4,908 20,451

2013

MEXICO SEA BASS (DICENTRARCHUS SPP.) FRESH NOT > 6.8KG 26,314 38,346

Grand Total: 2013 26,314 38,346

2014



Grand Total: 2014 8,971 45,692

2015



Grand Total: 2015 28,052 127,260

2016



Grand Total: 2016 66,500 425,074

2017



Grand Total: 2017 21,835 88,263


1 of 1 5/16/17, 1:37 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: SHARK

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO SHARK NSPF FRESH 23,841 40,421

MEXICO SHARK NSPF FROZEN 1,300 2,990

Grand Total: 2012 25,141 43,411

2013


Grand Total: 2013 46,007 95,069

2014


Grand Total: 2014 80,756 242,095

2015



Grand Total: 2015 56,372 153,660

2016


Grand Total: 2016 28,543 69,972

2017



Grand Total: 2017 21,656 54,004


1 of 1 5/16/17, 1:01 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: SHRIMP

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO SHRIMP BREADED FROZEN 7,843 85,498

MEXICO SHRIMP CANNED 11,603 111,507

MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER PEELED FROZEN 115,338 595,232

MEXICOSHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE

4,717 52,860

MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 15/20 3,388,198 34,686,418




MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 41/50 485,769 3,170,976


MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 61/70 145,794 809,860

MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN < 15 3,320,777 43,412,408

MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN > 70 179,923 949,408

MEXICO SHRIMP FROZEN IN ATC 400 3,692

MEXICO SHRIMP FROZEN OTHER PREPARATIONS 163,976 2,249,386

MEXICO SHRIMP OTHER PREPARATIONS 1,300 15,789

MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE 300 2,370

MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FROZEN 439,662 4,920,156

MEXICOSHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE

5,371 34,318

MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 15/20 1,516,747 16,820,685




MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 41/50 228,908 1,646,409


1 of 5 5/16/17, 12:53 PM


MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 61/70 32,551 288,626

MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN < 15 1,487,381 22,778,140

MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN > 70 201,242 673,243

Grand Total: 2012 26,292,005 256,149,553

2013




1,668 17,398








MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN < 15 1,384,156 23,122,503


MEXICO SHRIMP FROZEN IN ATC 14,638 375,844





1,572 23,124









MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN > 70 238,087 1,911,117

Grand Total: 2013 18,486,614 263,972,806

2014



2 of 5 5/16/17, 12:53 PM


180 2,760







MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN < 15 86,274 1,931,683




MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE 2,313 28,841



4,841 54,114










Grand Total: 2014 20,356,492 303,179,020

2015




3,750 54,750









3 of 5 5/16/17, 12:53 PM







7,400 71,854










Grand Total: 2015 27,995,384 320,381,229

2016

MEXICO SHRIMP BREADED FROZEN 115,325 1,082,653




6,679 87,811












MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE 4,280 63,203

MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FROZEN 1,228,871 14,191,285


4,636 64,772


4 of 5 5/16/17, 12:53 PM










Grand Total: 2016 25,326,536 294,809,796

2017

MEXICO SHRIMP BREADED FROZEN 10,464 132,809


MEXICO SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FRESH 249 3,300










MEXICO SHRIMP FROZEN OTHER PREPARATIONS 24,190 763,893



MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FRESH 4,778 65,450









MEXICO SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN > 70 363 5,672

Grand Total: 2017 5,396,695 74,120,960


5 of 5 5/16/17, 12:53 PM



Trade Type: IMPORTS

From: 2012

Through: 2017

Product: SNAPPER

Countries: MEXICO



2012

MEXICO SNAPPER (LUTJANIDAE SPP.) FRESH 3,400,650 21,008,491

MEXICO SNAPPER (LUTJANIDAE SPP.) FROZEN 565,725 2,573,142

Grand Total: 2012 3,966,375 23,581,633

2013



Grand Total: 2013 3,513,987 21,642,845

2014



Grand Total: 2014 3,281,412 21,386,065

2015



Grand Total: 2015 3,898,026 24,606,510

2016



Grand Total: 2016 4,974,886 30,423,611

2017


MEXICO SNAPPER (LUTJANIDAE SPP.) FROZEN 209,589 965,342

Grand Total: 2017 1,804,869 10,349,865


1 of 1 5/16/17, 1:34 PM

Documents

PETITION TO BAN IMPORTS OF FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS … · vaquita, it is irrefutable that many of Mexico’s commercial fisheries exporting to the United States engage in activities